About your Search

20130201
20130228
STATION
CSPAN 24
LANGUAGE
English 24
Search Results 0 to 23 of about 24 (some duplicates have been removed)
. it is for these reasons that i believe he is the wrong person to lead the pentagon at this perilous and consequential time. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator inhofe. we have two former chairmen of this committee with us to introduce senator hagel. no senator has had two dearer friends or better mentor is that -- mentors than i have had with senators nunn and warner. i want to welcome them back to this committee. i don't have to tell them that they are among dear, dear friends. it is a real treat to welcome you back to the committee. i will call on you, senator nunn, first. i will call you alphabetically. i have no better way to do it. sam? [laughter] sam, welcome back. >> first, for the record, seniority and age are two different things. senator levin, ranking member inhofe, i am honored to join my friend john warner in presenting chuck hagel to the committee and recommending that chuck be confirmed as our secretary of defense. i think it is worth noting that 68 years ago this month, john warner and listed in the u.s. -- enlisted in the u.s. navy to fight in world war ii. that was
. yorktown, appomattox, the pentagon where 9/11 occurred -- there is a ceremony tonight i will be commissioned in -- there is a commission in april. we care very deeply about these events. one in nine virginians birth to death is a veteran. when you add in the guard and reserve and contractors, now you are probably talking about one in three of us. we care very deeply about all that is within dod. let me be plain, the threat that virginians and others are talking about now more than ever is the inability of congress to find a way forward on a reasonable budget compromise. that is what is in the newspapers and the headlines. at the direction of the deputy director, dod is planning for future cuts. i am very worried at the macro level about dod's ability to pursue and execute appropriate national security objectives in this time of congressional inability to find a budget compromise. the current cr limits flexibility, for example, of the military to appropriately taylor resources, we have no flexibility to deal with a shortfall. and to me, it seems like funding the military
reasons, the pentagon have made their own case to the president. with the new resource problem home -- problem in mali. look what it took to support french forces against al qaeda subcontractors. if we can't do that, when americans are held hostage and killed, what kind of response do you really expect for -- >> is that a consequence of the u.s. not getting involved in mali earlier? >> what is the implication from that? that we need to be involved -- >> we were concerned about molly for at least eight months. only now there is discussion about what we should -- >> have another discussion on benghazi for the thousandth time. >> we are in the in danger -- in no danger of intervening too much. that is not what we have to worry about. >> let's move on. if you have a question, raise your hands and identify yourself. keep your questions short. let's go to -- then this woman right here in the black. >> as joshua said, syria is part of a broader middle east. what would be the position of the u.s. when lebanon, jordan, maybe israel and the whole region would be unstable? should the u.s. the
of the events of the events in benghazi. there were a series of meetings in the pentagon for expanding the department of defense's response as well as to prepare for the potential outbreak of further violence throughout the region. during these meetings, secretary panetta authorized a number of deployments. i hope that secretary panetta and the chairman will provide the committee with detail on the circumstances that led them to these decisions. since september, there's been a great deal of focus on the supporting role that the marine corps guards played -- play in many u.s. diplomatic missions abroad. the marine corps did not have an lament in again-- in benghazi. the committee will be closely monitoring the use of these marines. our fiscal year 2013 national defense authorization act that requires the secretary of defense to conduct an assessment of the mission of the marine security guard program, whether it should be expanded and to report to congress on the results of this review. more immediately, the provision requires the secretary to develop a plan to increase the number of ma
are expected to come from the pentagon. a conversation about the government's use of lethal force against suspected terrorists. our guest is christopher anders. then we'll talk with judith for the national partnership. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> having observed a steady improvement in the opportunities and well being of our citizens, i can report to you that the state of this youthful union is good. >> once again with keeping with time honored tradition i come to report to you on the state of the union. i'm pleased to report that america is much improved and there is good reason to believe that improve will continue. >> my duty tonight is to report on the state of the union. not the state of your government but of your american community and set forth our responsibilities in the words of our founders to form a more perfect union. the state of the union is strong. >> as we gather tonight, our nation is at war, our economy is in recession, and the civilized world faces unprecedented dangers, yet the state of our union has never been stronger. >> it is becau
%, and defense is that 13%. i would like to give them the tools at the pentagon to manage through this and make sure that readiness does not suffer. host: we are talking with representative matt salmon, republican from arizona. larry, rutledge, georgia, you are on the air. independent line. caller: i think they should get bob woodward and a are -- ar-16. the marsupial press cannot seem to get the president back in their pouch. maybe we could cut the program for the cloning of joe biden because we do not need stupid and stereo. thank you, sir. host: that was larry in georgia. this is the white house's take on the sequester in arizona -- $18 million lost in primary and secondary education. guest: i think if the president spent even one-third more time leading, we would probably be able to do the job that needs to be done as far as targeting specific cuts like four point $5 billion on him proper food stamp payments, or an unused airport and -- in oklahoma, $340,000 for robust squirrels. i could go on and on about the ridiculous spending. if the president would work with us and talk to harry reid i
with a balanced approach to new revenue and necessary pentagon cuts and it creates jobs all over the country. it equalizes the cuts we've already made with revenue by closing tax loopholes for america's wealthiest individuals and corporations. but we shouldn't just sacrifice our economic recovery because republicans are unwilling to vote for one single penny and new revenue, new contributions from their billionaire friends and corporations. we have to look at what these cuts mean in the sequester. the sequester involves 70,000 children being kicked off of head start. no one in this chamber disagrees about the importance of head start. early childhood education is absolutely essential in creating the foundation for learning in children all over the world. and that's what head start is about. 70,000 american children being kicked off head start. that's what happens when you use a meat cleaver instead of a scalpel. we're talking about more than a million kids who will see their schools lose education funding. we're talking about emergency responders who will lose their jobs, meaning slower resp
cuts scheduled to take effect march 1. half the cuts are from the pentagon. we will discuss that with ray locker. and a conversation about the use of lethal force against suspected terrorists. then we will talk about the 22 anniversary of the family and medical leave act. washington journal, live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. tonight, former president bill clinton speaks to a gathering of house democrats. new secretary of state john kerry meets with the canadian foreign minister. then a military farewell for leon panetta. senator ben cardin talks to employees at the national institutes of health. >> first lady helen taft on discussing politics. >> i had always had the satisfaction of knowing almost as much he about the politics and intricacies of any situation. i think any woman can discuss with her husband topics of national interest. i became familiar with more than politics. >> helen taft, whose husband, william howard taft, was the only man to serve as president and supreme court justice. c-span is new original series, first ladies, image and influence. produced with t
to continue on the washington post article that came all recently. it did suggest that the pentagon is pushing a plan that would keep only 8000 troops in afghanistan. general austin, can you support a plan that was scheduled withdrawal of troops in advance? we are looking at the withdrawal of troops in afghanistan. according to this article, from 8000 to about 1000 in a short period and of time. i have questions if we can even maintain our mission, let alone complete the mission. how can you make decisions on troop withdrawal when, as you stated previously, so much depends on troops on the ground, what the government is doing, what their abilities are at that point. how would you approach a proposal like that? >> i would really work hard to make sure i fully understood what to the leadership wanted to get done moving into the future. my advice as a commander on the ground or a commander of central command -- i would provide my advice to them based upon where i think the security forces are , the conditions in the theater, and what i think we need to do to move full word to make sure we maintai
from georgetown, serve as my chief of staff at the c.i.a. and then followed me to the pentagon as my chief of staff. and also someone who's had a public affairs at the pentagon, george little, who is also someone who both graduated and later taught here at georgetown. talented young individuals who have been at my side every day for the last four years at both the c.i.a. and the pentagon, and i am deeply grateful for their work for me and on behalf of the nation and i am deeply grateful for georgetown for training such extraordinary public servants. and speaking of extraordinary public servants, i think many in this audience know that there's a georgetown professor that the president has nominated to serve as the next secretary of defense, chuck hagel, and i am confident and i've expressed that confidence publicly that the men and women of the department of defense will have the kind of advocate they need as the nation emerges from more than a decade of war. lastly, i'm honored to be here, as i said, as a catholic and as a proud graduate of another jesuit institution, santa clara uni
return home, and i admit that when we first asked him to lead the pentagon, his answer was simple -- no. but i kept asking him. i am persistent. that is how michelle married me. i just kept at it, and it is a testament to his patriotism, to his sense of duty, that leon agreed to serve on this one last tour. perhaps it was the memory of his parents and opening their homes up to gi's added to the pacific, perhaps leon served himself, a young lieutenant in the army. perhaps it was the experience of watching his youngest son deployed to afghanistan. what we do know is this -- as our nation's's 23rd secretary of defense and every action beyond panetta has taken, every decision he has made has been with one goal in mind -- taking care of our sons and our daughters in uniform and keeping america safe. just think of the progress under his watch. because we ended the war in iraq, winding down the war in afghanistan, our troops are coming home, and next year our war in afghanistan will come to an end. we have put the core of al qaeda on the path to defeat. we have been relentless against its affi
that came out recently. it did suggest the pentagon is pushing the pentagon that would only keep 8000 troops in afghanistan. i know that general austin, you weren't a part of the process so far, but can you support a plan that was scheduled withdraws troops in advance? you know, we're looking at withdraws troops in afghanistan and according to thisarticle from a passing down to 1000 within a short period of time, i ve questions if we can even maintain our mission, let alone complete the mission. how can you make decisions on troop withdraw when sec previously, so much depends on the ground, what the government is doing, what variability eyes up to that point. how would you approach a proposal like that? >> i certainly would first really work hard to make sure i fully understood with the leadership wanted to get done moving into the future. certainly my advice is the commander on the ground or commander central command would ovide my advice based upon breaking the security forces are and the conditions in theater and what i think we need to do to move forward to make sure we maintain the gain
. as is widely recognized, sequestration over the next 10 years apply to the pentagon budget would only reduce it in inflation adjusted terms to what it was in 2007 a. the most powerful military in the world -- 2007, as the most powerful military in the world engaged in a war in iraq and the challenge in afghanistan. if members of congress pay attention to the facts, they will see a clear path to dramatically reduce pentagon spending without undermining america's position as being the most powerful nation on the planet. and nobody has done a better job of highlighting a path forward, an area of opportunity, than walter pinkus writhing on the pages of the "washington post" over the last couple years as he details the sweep of our nuclear weapons program and the spending trajectory. this morning's latest offering should be required reading for every member of congress and the ones who whine the loutest should be forced to read it -- loudest should be forced to read it twice. he details a vast array of nuclear weapons already deployed, ready to be deployed within 30 minutes, a relic of our conten
, but the sequester is set to happen next friday, march 1. the pentagon is addressing that next friday and there will be a news conference coming up at 1:00 p.m. eastern to talk about pentagon plans on c-span 2 at 1:00. gail is on the democrat line. what did you think of the secretary's speech? >> i thought that his speech was excellent. i am really grateful for the secretary and what he is doing. we live in an interdependent world and it is important that we give foreign policy rights. that also includes getting the budget right. that is the message around the world. if we want to be successful, we need to do this at home, we need to make sure that we are sending the message of who americans are out of the world. thank you so much, senator -- secretary carry, for what you're doing. >> john, independent line. >> i would like -- i like to the secretary's speech. it had ambition and scope. i wish him great success in the job. i do feel that he has to overcome a legacy of failure from hillary clinton in her years as secretary of state. >> what is the specific failure he has to overcome? c
kill tv, jay johnson, a pentagon stop lawyer admitted, quote, if i were catholic i'd have to go to confession, unquote. mr. petraeus' departure presents mr. obama with an opportunity to halt the c.i.a.'s drift toward becoming a paramilitary organization and put it back on course. for all the technological advances america's made in the decade of fighting al qaeda, it still needs all the old tricks it learned in the day before spy satellites and droughns drones. more and better human intelligence in sources on the ground will result in more accurate targeting. that would be a yemen model that actually worked and a lasting and more effective counterterrorism legacy for mr. obama's second term. gregory johnson from "the new york times." another good article by patrick pool on june 6 of 2012. obama's assassination czar, a relatively unnoticed article, this is from the article, quoting, by associated press reporter kimberly dozer two weeks ago outlining new obama administration policy changes which consolidated power for authorizing drone attacks and assassinations under political ap
the pentagon, his answer was simple -- no. but i kept asking him. i am persistent. that is how michelle married me. i just kept at it, and it is a testament to his patriotism, to his sense of duty that leon agreed to serve on this one last tour. perhaps it was the memory of his parents opening their homes up to g.i.'s headed to the pacific. perhaps it was leon, who served himself, a young lieutenant in the army. perhaps it was the experience of watching his youngest son deployed to afghanistan. what we do know is this -- as our nation's's 23rd secretary of defense, in every action leon panetta has taken, every decision he has made has been with one goal in mind -- taking care of our sons and our daughters in uniform and keeping america safe. just think of the progress under his watch. because we ended the war in iraq, winding down the war in afghanistan, our troops are coming home, and next year our war in afghanistan will come to an end. we have put the core of al qaeda on the path to defeat. we have been relentless against its affiliates. because we have a sacred obligation to our troops to t
the pentagon and military posts have strong seasoned leadership teams. regardless of having the secretary or not having one is a portent concern. -- a point of concern. you have a good strong team that will be able to manage through this process. they have seen this coming. as you would expect the military to do, they are prepared. host: new hampshire, and the pennant caller -- caller: morning and thank you. i am so tired of the irresponsibility of the republicans. the chuck hagel thing is preposterous. how does it serve the nation to delay the president's choice? it is the first time in history that a filibuster has been used against a cabinet the sequester is the height of irresponsibility. why risk a potential double dip recession just so you can score political points? finally, you criticized the president for being out of washington and yet, -- that was and finally -- hear you are supporting a filibuster and finally, though you partly answer the question or just now, what your district and tails are large installations, i assume, other than fort campbell in your district. my brother
. >> we are under 10 days now. the pentagon briefed yesterday saying the furloughs among civilian employees would not take place until late april. >> i think the process begins, an administrative process for you and not something that will begin and notices began to go out but i would refer you to the pentagon for details. >> you have to cut into other things. >> each agency is dealing with the serious implications of the sequester to their budgets. the defense is one of those agencies that will be hit very hard but i refer you to the agencies themselves about how they are managing the process. >> the president got good news because rick scott said he now wants to expand medicaid. he is one of several -- several republican governors who have looked flopped on that. how does the white house review that? >> we are focused on implementation of the portable care act. we think the decisions made by governors across the country to move forward with implementation recognize that the benefits here for providing affordable health care to citizens of their state are very worthwhile. and we
. at the challenge the people currently at the pentagon are facing. host: fredericksburg, virginia, independent line. caller: thanks for taking my call. there's nothing worse than a great secretary and nothing better than a wonderful one. most of the individuals who work for our government appear not to have the wherewithal to know exactly what to do and appear to be on training wheels while they are learning. we the taxpayer take the brunt of everything. while you are a very unstudied lady and are only given the credentials you have having a report card to show who you are, this individual appears to be a floater guest: i think that is unfair. he has done a number of things throughout his career. he is not only a senator, but he was a deputy administrator at the department of veterans affairs. that is a massive responsibility. he cofounded one of the bigges
, a cut in naval forces. at $3 billion cut in the military's health care system. the pentagon could be restructuring contracts. what do you want to say about those areas? guest: training is of cuts where only units preparing to deploy or other places -- these are the ones that will be training. everyone else, primarily in the air force and the navy, their planes will be grounded because it will not have the money they would use to do the training. it will be shifted into the war accounts to pay for afghanistan. stuff like tricare, i believe you mentioned, that is more like the benefits for care and being seen by doctors and whatnot. >> there are lots of voices in washington. what should we know about the defensive area? guest: there are two sides. there is the side that says we need to cut federal spending and the defense needs to take a roll. a lot of them would agree with that. the problem is, we're halfway done with the year and they have not been preparing for this. they will up to squeeze this into a six-month period. if it is fully implemented, it will have an impact. 2014, if
. people running these agencies, people who run the pentagon. i met with the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff) we left. these cuts are going to take place. they will be felt with defense more quickly because agencies have not rehired the people that they could have. because of the essential nature of what the military does. they have not done that. the cuts to the military will kick in more quickly. the other cuts, as the weeks move on, you will see more and more people who have been hurt in the non-defense fields. the effects are cumulative and they are going to hurt really bad, mr. president. we want to work with republicans to come to a balanced responsible way to reduce this sequester, the impact of it. my republican colleagues are standing in the way. they only want cuts and more cuts. they are willing to sacrifice three quarters of a million american jobs rather than ask to pay a penny more. mr. president, 56%, almost 60% of republicans around the country support this balanced approach that we have. republicans around the country support this, in addition to independents and de
there and can be a very effective leader at the pentagon. john brennan is somebody i worked with as director of the c.i.a. and continue to work with in this capacity. and i always found him to be very responsible about how we can effectively conduct operations against al qaeda and against those that would attack this country. he is somebody a straight shooter, somebody who gives you his best opinion. he doesn't play games. he's someone who i think can really honestly represent the best protection of this country in that job. >> thank you very much. and i want to thank you for your forth right comments today about the sequester. ironically as what you said in your statement, it appears the greatest threat to the united states security is the united states congress. thank you, mr. secretary. >> thank you. let me mention this, after senator nelson, the first round will be over. there may be a number of us who may want a few minutes on the second round and you two witnesses have been here for three hours and you may need a five or 10-minute break. do you want that following senator nelson or go
, there is concern of layoffs. the dimensions darpa -- you d darpa. the except the restraints on the pentagon plus those coming into play, that have negative impacts? >> we are not a big player in that space anymore. i think a little bit of catalyst is something you see in every corner of the world. whether it is europe or china or anyplace else, i did not go to one place where there is no one government at all. the private sector is still very strong here and innovative. the private sector can pick up a lot. just getting it done. the will be such a value in a just getting some of these things behind us so we can adjust to move forward. the sigh of relief is incredibly important right now. i am an optimist. it does not end with a discussion on washington. we can compete. the work force of the to this country is as good as any in the world. >> thank you for the optimistic note. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] moste church is boston's visited historic site. half a million come to the church every year because
Search Results 0 to 23 of about 24 (some duplicates have been removed)